This was never formally adopted but in reality we had covered a lot of ground and teased out many of the issues and when it came to the FDC bid it provided the background that we were able to use and indeed were complimented on by the Foundation.

However it was not a process that engaged enough of the community and it is certainly worth going back to zero and starting the process again.

So please add your contributions to the talk page for what should be in the plan.

The consensus was that it should be placed in a context of both the Wikimedia movement (WMF) and our own strategic goals.

The plan could be broken down by operational areas; Governance, Finance, Outreach, Fundraising, Communications, Membership, Community etc and then each should have sections with SMART targets added for the period and does not need to be pre-judged in too much detail.

Agreement that this should be as wide as possible. In a sense this has already begun. To include members, community, donors, fellow open knowledge organisations and contributors. Good idea to use a survey as part of this process.

How do we make sure it reaches the widest possible community?
The blog, Twitter, Facebook, geonotices / talk page notices, email lists, Signpost, the village pumps of the relevant language Wikimedia projects.

How often should it be reviewed, by whom and in what ways?[edit | edit source]

Once completed an annual review should be about right to monitor how we are progressing with a more substantial review at least 18 months before the next five year period starts.
The annual plans can have more detailed targets that are monitored against the 5 year plan.